Subject: RE: Silly corrections to the rel 1 DLSw spec.

From: "Steve Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 08:14:40 EDT

Reference: Note from G. Pandian attached below

Alan, Pandian,

The existing phrase does not say that the DLSw that issued the
HALT_DL_NOACK is waiting for a DL_HALTED message.  It says that
the receiver of the HALT_DL_NOACK is waiting for a DLC_DL_HALTED
indication from its DLC.  I think the term "remote DLS" is what
is causing the confusion here.  Since either a target or remote
DLSw could be in this state let's just drop the "remote" part.
The same would be true for the description for HALT_PENDING state.
Does that sound reasonable?  Pandian has pointed out that the state
machines already state whether or not a DL_HALTED message is sent
for HALT_PENDING and HALT_PENDING_NOACK.

Steve

------------------------------- Referenced Note ---------------------------
Subject: RE: Silly corrections to the rel 1 DLSw spec.
From: Gnanaprakasam Pandian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 10:14:47 PDT
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]!gpandian, [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>; from "Alan K. Bartky, Manager of Technology" at Jul 18, 94 8:49 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

<... stuff deleted ... >

> Page 27 : HALT_PENDING_NOACK
>
> Existing phrase
> 	The remote DLS is awaiting the DLC_DL_HALTED indication
> 	following the DLC_HALT_DL request
> 	(i.e., DLC is waiting for a UA response to a DISC command), due to
> 	receiving a HALT_DL_NOACK message.)
>
> Proposed
> 	Due to receiving a HALT_DL_NOACK message, the local
> 	DLC has issued a DISC command and waiting for a UA response.
> 	The remote DLS is NOT waiting for a DL_HALTED message.
>                           ~~~
> AKB> You say this does not alter the underlying semantics, yet in
> AKB> the existing phrase it says the remote DLS is awaiting the
> AKB> DL_HALTED message and the proposed text it says that it
> AKB> is not.  To me this is not an editorial change.  This is an
> AKB> interpretation of the state machine and therefore it
> AKB> must be approved by the connect group.  I do not
> AKB> have time to look at all the text in context as so
> AKB> far I have been busy enough just doing editiorial
> AKB> corrections and cut and paste of contributions.
>

Alan,

This looks like a cut and paste error to me.
The phrase has been borrowed from the HALT_PENDING state
and did not go through the change neccessary for HALT_PENDING_NOACK.

It is made clear from the state tables

4.2.2.12 HALT_PENDING state
		Event		Action		next state
		DLC_DL_HALTED	Send DL_HALTED	DISCONNECTED

4.2.2.13 HALT_PENDING_NOACK state
		Event		Action		next state
		DLC_DL_HALTED	-		DISCONNECTED

Could someone else chime in.

thanks
	/pandian

---

From: Gnanaprakasam Pandian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 94 9:30:09 PDT

> Does that sound reasonable?  

Yes, Steve.
Thanks for the clarification.

Since, we talk about the ssp message the 
target DLS is waiting for in circuit_pending and contact_pending states,
just to be consistant, we could(optional?) 
add one line to the the existing
phrase, for HALT_PENDING state.

4.2.1:    HALT_PENDING
 	The DLS is awaiting the DLC_DL_HALTED indication
 	following the DLC_HALT_DL request
 	(i.e., DLC is waiting for a UA response to a DISC command, due to
 	receiving a HALT_DL message.)

 	The target DLS is waiting for a DL_HALTED message.

          HALT_PENDING_NOACK

 	The DLS is awaiting the DLC_DL_HALTED indication
 	following the DLC_HALT_DL request
 	(i.e., DLC is waiting for a UA response to a DISC command, due to
 	receiving a HALT_DL_NOACK message.)

> Pandian has pointed out that the state

-- 
G. Pandian           + Gnanaprakasam Pandian      +
Cisco Systems, Inc.  + Software Engineer          +           
1525 O'Brien Drive   + Phone : (415)688-7684      +
Menlo Park,          + FAX   : (415)688-8282      +
CA 94026             + E-mail: [email-masked] +